First, don't be so defensive.
This is becoming so very typical of your posts. Utterly baseless accusations.
All I have done is use facts and logic to debunk your arguments. That is not 'defensive' by any stretch of the imagination.
The only one being defensive here is you, with your stubborn insistence to maintain a position despite all the back up your have presented in support of that position being systematically proven to be wrong or unconvincing at best.
Stop projecting and just discuss the topic.
Second, did you notice how big R-27 is and how far the rack extend from the body? Two things. The further the missile is from the body, the less aerodynamic impact. second, you also have to consider the turbulence on the missile itself. A smaller and lighter missile is more delicate.
That is just plain nonsense. The Su27 intake rack is little different from the underwing ones. And small missiles being 'delicate'?! Where the hell did you pull thaty one from?
With Rafale, the missiles are also extended from the body. Also, pay attention to the missiles it carries - MICA, 3.1m vs PL-12 at 4m.
You are moving onto the missiles now? Try a scattergun approach much?
And once again you are displaying your shockingly poor knowledge. The MICA is shorter than the PL12, but has a considerably shorter range as a result.
Again, its a design compromise not a superior solution. When will you ever learn?
Pay attention to Rafale's design. Rafale is about one meter shorter than J-10. Note how much less space the main landing gears occupies. If you take additional 1.5m space away between the front and rear missiles, do you think it will be able to carry four MICA's underbody, even though MICA is almost the same length as PL-8?
For someone who tells others to 'pay attenion' so much, you sure as hell don't do it much yourself.
Looking at that picture, does the Rafale landing bay doors look like they take much less room than the J10's? Notice how your precious Rafale also retract its main gear into the fuselage instead of the wings. Guess the French don't know how to design landing gears either going by your logic.
If you look at the room available either side of the Rafale, you can see that it looks to be a lot less, not more, than what the J10 has available in front of the MLG. The Rafale does have more room behind as a consequence.
Last, let's use some logic. The CAC designers are not stupid. If there is any way for them to fit the PL-12's under the body, there is no way they would try to implement combo racks for the wing points.
What kind of ridiculous BS nonsense logic is this? Combo racks and fuselage missile carriage capability are not mutually exclusive. It boggles the mind how anyone could make such a nonsensical claim.
Go look up pictures of F15s and F18s with combo racks and fuselage carriage of AMRAAMs.
Those two hard points are the only ones for heavy and long anti-ground or anti-ship weapons if it has to carry the external tanks. That's simple logic.
And? Those hardpoints are not aways going to be used to carry heavy weapons. On AA missions, why wouldn't they want the option of using dual racks?
Regarding J-11/Su-27, I was thinking about J-11B. Because obviously J-11 can carry R-77 because J-11A is Su-27. That's deductive logic. If you can find Su-27 with R-77, then you can deduct J-11 can carry R-77.
However, if you cannot find photos of Chinese J-11 (or Su-27) with R-77, then you cannot say for sure that China has a R-77 inventory. The rumors of contract is supporting evidence for inductive logic, but nobody can say 100% for sure based on rumors.
This is absolutely hilarious!
I used the J11 R77 as an example of where your 'if I ain't see a picture of it it doesn't exist' warped logic would utterly fail, and you then gone and actually made the point for me. And even gone as far as to try and cast doubt on whether China has any R77s at all?
The PLAAF has a large R77 inventory. That is established fact, and has been for about a decade.
The Russians upgraded the Su27s and first J11s to allow them to use R77. That again is a reported fact, not rumor.
The fact you would even suggest otherwise not only aptly demonstrates how unsound your position is, but it also cast major doubts over whether you actually know what you are talking about since you seem to be ignorant of of many well established facts.
With underbody hard points on J-10, there is no evidence, photos or others, to support missiles on those hard points. I can even use the appearance of combo wing racks as evidence against your speculation.
There isn't confirmation yet, if there was we wouldn't be having this discussion. My point is that there is enough room on either side of the MLG to carrying AAMs on the J10.
In any case, relax. Read my posts a couple of posts up. Don't take any kind of discussion personal. Don't be so defensive. It is bad enough to fight the T-50 and LCA fanboys. Don't be a fanboy yourself.
The only one who is behaving like a fanboy is you, with your utter disregard for facts and real world examples.
All I have done is point out where you are wrong. Don't be pissy with me just because you don't like facts or reality.
